Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 9, 2012 3:00am-3:30am PDT

3:00 am
940 people and i agree with what member schreiber said, that's too much population at this point for us to consider moving and if that would require moving the boundary on the other side from market to mission, i would be reluctant to do that as well. the motivation behind this, it's the context of 100-some person move that would allow another s.r.o. to say. that's the spirit behind the proposal. >> in pilpel. >> this puts me in a difficult position. i want to put population in three if possible but i'm not crazy going south of market. i have gone back and forth on that. i think on balance, i would rather stay at market street for the 36 border east of third. and if that passes, so be it. and further imbalancing three
3:01 am
and so i'm not with the hotel move. >> thank you. any other discussions? ok, proposal on the table is 128 population move. d-6 deviation becomes .96, d-3 is negative 3.84. >> is that correct? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> thank you. mr. alanso? >> yes. >> thank you. please make this change.
3:02 am
ok. next question before us is -- we just dealt with central business district. d-9 border at 16th. >> i wanted to do that. >> ok, please. >> to revisit it. but that was something we had already visited. >> miss mondejar? >> that would be testimony we
3:03 am
received this morning, a lot of communication, original communication. i would like the task force to reconsider moving the line to 15 and to extend it to valencia and harrison. >> is that the highlighted area? >> i think. >> the population for the highlighted area? >> one moment. one moment. i want to make sure you highlighted the area. ok. population and deviation. >> population for the highlighted areas, 2,205 people. deviation for district 6 would be 3.98% and the deviation for district 9, 1.79%. >> thank you.
3:04 am
mr. schreiber. i thought you had your hand -- >> i did. >> this is the question whether we reunite the mission or not. that's what we're visiting or revisiting right now. so i don't -- i have a point of view. should i express that now or later? i guess my point of view is that i think that while we received a lot of testimony very recently proposing to put that into d-6 overall, we also received a lot of positive feedback at reuniting the mission as we have in the current map. that is where i would keep the line. >> thank you. miss mondejar, you want to say more about this before we consider it? >> well, the consideration was the tenderloin area. let me ask, could you give us the breakdown on asian
3:05 am
population. >> in the highlighted area? >> in the highlighted area. >> just one second. >> we're going to take the shaded area off. if you would just keep an eye on that so you can see it a little better.
3:06 am
this is percent asian population . and this is 15th street right here. the little bit darker shaded blocks are 25% to 40% asian. >> i think that's 10% to 25%. >> oh, yes, i'm sorry 10% to 25%. it's kind of hard to see. and the really light shades areas are zero to 10%. >> so the highest is 25% and it goes down from there, correct? >> that's correct. >> what about the latino population in that area? >> just one second. >> this is the -- no population for this area again.
3:07 am
this is 15th street right here. the very dark shaded area has a latino percentage of 75% to 100%. the next lower shaded area in orange there is 50% to 75%. and the next color is 30% to 250%. -- 30% to 50%. >> thank you. >> the testimony is that this is part of the tenderloin area that the latino community has been, to the south of market, have been working to -- serve the population for many years. so i would like us to consider, reconsider and at their request. >> ok, thank you. let's highlight the area. population again is 2,205, deviation of 3.6 becomes 2.98, deviation of d-9 becomes 1.79.
3:08 am
miss tidwell? >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. miss lam? >> over the last two weeks we had taken numerous considerations and votes for this very section and i had at that point wanted to keep the border at 15th from some of our public testimonies and history of that area, but at this time and where we're at in the process, i for today will vote no for this proposal. >> thank you. miss melara? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> for the same reasons that -- and chronology that vice-chair lam described, i will also vote no. >> mr. alanso? >> this is too many people too late. i'm sorry, no. >> thank you. >> ok. moving then down our list.
3:09 am
mission bay, someone place mission bay. >> decided not to. >> thank you. don't worry about it.let's go 1. >> could you describe that? >> i could not. >> what we heard is that we are ready to kick between san jose,
3:10 am
cabrera, and coconut and moved that into 8. the request is to keep that as is. i will keep some of the other blocks east of tiffany. it is bounded by guerrero, san jose and duncan. if there was an interest in the broader move of that area into 8, it would be the broader rotation that i saw the other day. this is already in 8. >> we are good on 3919.
3:11 am
moving down to the potential block of sunnyside, the overlapping block of sunnyside and glen park. >> what are the streets that this block is bounded by? >> mangel and congo. >> that is correct.
3:12 am
>> is that the correct block? it is a population of 135 people. it would bring the population of district 8 to 3.22%. deviation for district 8 would be 3.22%. deviation for district 7 would be -0.48%. population, 135. >> i would like to see the current boundaries. thank you. >> may i point out that the map
3:13 am
the sunnyside neighbors association provided us is very helpful. the neighbors association and the sunnyside neighbors association. if you look at that map, the ones north orf naples is not part of the sunnyside neighborhood. this is between the congo. i would look at the population and nancy if we could maintain the glen park boundaries.
3:14 am
>> and the discussion on this block? >> it is arguable how it affects glen park. to the extent this moves population from 8 to 7. 7 to 8, then it is going the wrong direction. i am not with this. >> any other discussion? mr. shriver. commissioner schreiber: it moves population from 7 to 8 to keep the population together. i would be interested to know the population of the section of the glen park neighborhood that is not currently on our map.
3:15 am
>> any other discussion on this block that is highlighted. let's call the question. glen park, the population here is 135. resulting deviation is 3.8 to 2%. >> yes. commissioner schreiber: so, we're just doing this in the abstract? >> it may be abstract for you. it was a proposal put on the table of this particular block. commissioner schreiber: doing this block along doesn't appeal
3:16 am
to me because it cuts into an established neighborhood. rather than uniting glen park. ok, yes. convinced me. >> no. >> i have a concern about moving population to district 8. -0.4 in 7. can i make a -- come back to me. commissioner laml:
3:17 am
did we look at the glen park lions already? >> the assumption is that once we do this, we do glen park. >> yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> thank you, please make this change. >> is in the same area of that battle blocked of the things that we just moved. it looks like a trapezoid right above. it is mirrored in the exhaust stream boundaries. -- mirroring the existing boundaries. >> the deviation for district 7 to -7.3%. >> i would propose that we make that change to allow glen park
3:18 am
to be unified. >> thank you very much. >> yes. >> yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> no. commissioner schreiber: yes. >> please make that change. one moment please. talk amongst yourselves. just kidding. did we do the northern border of d6? done.
3:19 am
satisfied? correct? there was one proposal with a trade-off and then there was an alternate proposal. >> my proposal is doing what we have done today. >> we did hers. >> perfect. we are done there. and that is all i am looking for. to check it off. what is the proposal? >> to move the heights into summit. >> i think public testimony would make sense. can you look at where it is. i really don't know where it is
3:20 am
. >> there is one block between clarendon and belgrade. on the block is a public submission for the boundaries. >> that is the campus. >> if i might. i am not in favor of this change. but meese the if i can describe it. it is in the southern corner of the map that i'm describing now. it is between clarendon and
3:21 am
johnstone. right around there. it is a 35-person block. >> it goes beyond that point. >> i was looking at clarendon. that is somethign different. i would look at what is inside. >> is the block immediately to the west. not the second. i think that is the block. >> that is a population of 35
3:22 am
people. >> the proposal or purpose of this proposal? >> i know the direction. the purpose as in why. >> geographically, they are connected to 7. >> i would counter by saying the block to the west and the east also face clarendon. i am ok with brit is. >> the population and resulting deviations? >> the population is 35 people. the deviation for district 5 would be 1.96%.
3:23 am
>> i would like to see the west of twin peaks labor quit later. >> -- neighborhood layer. >> i think we had heard testimony from the twin peaks improvement association with that. they saw twin peaks boulevard as being a strong border. >> the purple is the west of twin peaks council submission. >> thank you. any other questions? deviation, -0.69%.
3:24 am
commissioner tidwell: could you say it again? yes. >> thank you. commissioner schreiber: yes. >> no. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner melara: yes. commissioner leigh: yes. >> please make this change. the last thing on our list is
3:25 am
the hill. >> melissa, do you want to make that proposal? highlighting the block of th e post of van ness and franklin which would put the cathedral hill development in 25. >> that is a population of one person. >> who lives there? >> the guards. >> the deviation for district 2 would be -5%. we will be checking on that.
3:26 am
>> it is still ok. it is still ok. >> would you like us to check on the deviation? we can take a look at it. >> it becomes 6.9944. >> i have some good news for you. the deviation is 4.998%. >> ok. please highlight it.
3:27 am
4.998%. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: there are fewer people who live on the median strip on 19th avenue. yes. commissioner pilpel: no. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner leigh: yes. commissioner alonso: yes. >> please make this change. yes, mr. schreiber. commissioner schreiber: i had this on my list as something
3:28 am
that you mentioned. commissioner pilpel: the tingly trade that i describe the other day and we did not come to consensus on doingis to take the area south of 280, north of tingly, i don't have the numbers here. move that back to 11. take the aread south of st. luke's, all the way down to randall. 723 is what is nets out. move that down to 8.
3:29 am
below 280, there were three or four blocks that would go from 11 to 9. >> this is the proposal we have down before. >> it is the same proposal, correct? >> interested in revisiting? commissioner tidwell: i am not quite understanding. commissioner schreiber: no. commissioner mondejar: no. vice chair lam: